Re: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?

Subject: Re: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-30 13:03:44

Sorry for top posting, and even more sorry for being dense, but what are you
trying to say? For me it's not clear from your mail what problems we as
Boost developers could face (and why?) if the mentioning of Boost is not
removed from the SFC website.

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 11:49 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost
> developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?
> 
> http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/
> (Current Member Projects)
> 
> "Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.
> 
> Boost emphasizes libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library.
> Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a
> broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both
> commercial and non-commercial use.
> 
> Boost aims to establish "existing practice" and provide reference
> implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual
> standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++
> Standards Committee's Library Technical Report ( TR1) as a step toward
> becoming part of a future C++ Standard. More Boost libraries are proposed
> for the upcoming TR2."
> 
> The context:
> 
> (pacer)
> 
> 03/23/2011 192  ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
> from David Leichtman dated 3/23/2011 re: Requesting that the Reply and
> Kuhn Declaration be stricken, or in the alternative, that the Court
> consider Best Buy's responses to these new theories and arguments.
> ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The Court will consider Best
> Buy's response to the new issues raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, as set forth
> in this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A.
> Scheindlin on 3/23/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
> 04/14/2011 193  OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons in this opinion and
> order, plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied. The Clerk of the Court is
> directed to close this motion (Docket No. 133). (Signed by Judge Shira A.
> Scheindlin on 4/14/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
> 04/26/2011 194  ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
> from Emmett J. McMahon, dated 4/25/2011, re: Counsel for the defendant
> Best Buy Co., writes to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion
> to strike Plaintiffs' claim for "actual damages and any additional profits
> of [Best Buy] incurred as the result of infringement." ENDORSEMENT:
> Request granted. A premotion conference will be held on May 6 at 2:30. So
> Ordered. (Pre-Motion Conference set for
> 5/6/2011 at 02:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge
> Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
> 
> (details)
> 
> http://www.terekhov.de/192.pdf
> http://www.terekhov.de/194.pdf
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> Please remove boost from http://sfconservancy.org/members
> 
> TIA.
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost